Search Penny Hill Press

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The
United States often looks to Europe as its partner of choice in addressing
important global challenges. Given the extent of the transatlantic
relationship, congressional foreign policy activities and interests
frequently involve Europe. The relationship between the United States and the
European Union (EU) has become increasingly significant in recent years, and it
is likely to grow even more important. In this context, Members of
Congress often have an interest in understanding the complexities of EU
policy making, assessing the compatibility and effectiveness of U.S. and
EU policy approaches, or exploring the long-term implications of changing
transatlantic dynamics.

The EU As a Global Actor

Seeking to play a more active role in global affairs, the EU has developed a
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and a Common Security and
Defense Policy (CSDP). On many foreign policy and security issues, the 27
EU member states exert a powerful collective influence. On the other hand,
some critics assert that on the whole the EU remains an economic power only,
and that its foreign and security policies have little global impact. Some
of the shortcomings in the EU’s external policies stem from the inherent
difficulties of reaching a complete consensus among the member state
governments. Moreover, past institutional arrangements have often failed
to coordinate the EU’s full range of resources.

Elements of EU External Policy

The Common Foreign and Security Policy is based on unanimous consensus among
the member states. CFSP is a mechanism for adopting common principles and
guidelines on political and security issues, committing to common
diplomatic approaches, and undertaking joint actions. Many analysts argue
that Europe’s relevance in world affairs increasingly depends on its ability to speak
and act as one.

The EU is currently conducting 12 operations under its Common Security and
Defense Policy. To establish a more robust CSDP, EU member states have been
exploring ways to increase their military capabilities and promote greater
defense integration. These efforts have met with limited success thus far.
Civilian missions and capabilities, however, are also central components of CSDP;
the majority of CSDP missions have been civilian operations in areas such as
police training and rule of law.

External policies in technical areas such as trade, humanitarian aid,
development assistance, enlargement, and neighborhood policy are
formulated and managed through a “community” process at the level of the
EU institutions. (The European Neighborhood Policy seeks to deepen the EU’s
relations with its southern and eastern neighbors while encouraging them to
pursue governance and economic reforms.) These are the EU’s most deeply
integrated external policies. Given events in North Africa, the Middle
East, and some of the former Soviet states, EU policymakers have been
rethinking how such external policy tools might be used to better effect.

The United States, the EU, and NATO

Although some observers remain concerned that a strong EU might act as a
counterweight to U.S. power, others maintain that an assertive and capable
EU is very much in the interest of the United States. The focus of the transatlantic
relationship has changed since the end of the Cold War: it is now largely
about the United States and Europe working together to manage a range of global problems.
According to some experts, U.S.-EU cooperation holds the greatest potential for successfully
tackling many of today’s emergent threats and concerns.

Nevertheless, NATO remains the dominant institutional foundation for
transatlantic security affairs. U.S. policymakers have supported efforts
to develop EU security policies on the condition that they do not weaken
NATO, where the United States has a strong voice on European security issues.
Despite their overlapping membership, the EU and NATO have struggled to work
out an effective cooperative relationship. Analysts suggest that sorting out
the dynamics of the U.S.-EUNATO relationship to allow for a comprehensive
and effective use of Euro-Atlantic resources and capabilities will be a
key challenge for U.S. and European policymakers in the years ahead.

Date of Report: July 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 29Order Number: R41959Price: $29.95

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Kristin
ArchickSpecialist in European Affairs
Vincent MorelliSection Research Manager

The
United States and the European Union (EU) share an extensive, dynamic, and for
many a mutually beneficial political and economic partnership. A growing
element of that relationship is the role that the U.S. Congress and the
European Parliament (EP)—a key EU institution—have begun to play,
including in areas ranging from foreign and economic policy to regulatory
reform. Proponents of establishing closer relations between the U.S.
Congress and the EP point to the Parliament’s growing influence as a
result of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, which took effect in December 2009. The
Lisbon Treaty has increased the relative power of the EP within the EU, and in
some cases, with significant implications for U.S. interests. Consequently,
some officials and experts on both sides of the Atlantic have asked
whether it would be beneficial for Congress and the EP to strengthen institutional
ties further and to explore the possibility of coordinating efforts to
develop more complementary approaches to policies in areas of mutual interest.

The Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD), the formal exchange between
Congress (actually the House of Representatives) and the European
Parliament, was launched in 1999, although semi-annual meetings between
Congress and the EP date back to 1972. The TLD’s visibility increased
somewhat following the 2007 decision to name it as an advisor to the
Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), which seeks to “advance the work of
reducing or eliminating non-tariff barriers to transatlantic commerce and
trade.”

In response to the TLD’s new TEC-related responsibilities, some Members of
Congress suggested that there was a need for more cooperation with the EP,
and raised questions with respect to how this might best be accomplished.
For those Members and outside advocates of closer relations, questions
have surfaced about whether the TLD itself was organized in a way that would
facilitate such relations, how the standing committees in both
institutions might interact, and what role, if any, for the U.S. Senate.
Since 2010, regular contacts between Congress and the Parliament, including
at the committee level, have fluctuated in frequency. However, many observers
note that the EP has been far out in front of Congress in pursuit of a
stronger relationship mostly through the many EP delegations traveling to
Washington to meet their counterparts. In 2010, the Parliament opened a
liaison office in Washington that was charged with keeping the EP better informed
of legislative activity in Congress and vice-versa. In addition, each EP
standing committee has named a “TLD Administrator” on its staff to act as
a contact point between the committee and the TLD, as well as between the
committee and its counterpart committee in the U.S. Congress.

While there appears to be no formal objection within Congress to increasing
contacts with the European Parliament, some point out that with the
exception of a few Members with previous experience in the TLD, Congress
as a whole has been seen at best as ambivalent to such efforts and has not
demonstrated as much enthusiasm as the EP about forging closer relations. This observation
had been noted by the EP itself when at the beginning of the 112th Congress
neither the new chair nor the vice chair of the USTLD were appointed until
early June.

This report provides background on the Congress–EP relationship and the role of
the TLD. It also explores potential future options should an effort to
strengthen ties between the two bodies gain momentum. For additional
information, see CRS Report RS21998, The European Parliament, by Kristin
Archick.

Date of Report: July 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 32Order Number: R41552Price: $29.95
Document available via
e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports

Monday, July 9, 2012

U.S.
ratification of the United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Rights of the Child
(hereafter referred to as CRC or the Convention) may be a key area of
focus during the 112th Congress, particularly if the Barack Obama
Administration seeks the advice and consent of the Senate. CRC is an
international treaty that aims to protect the rights of children worldwide. It
defines a child as any human being under the age of 18, and calls on
States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure that children’s rights
are protected—including the right to a name and nationality; freedom of
speech and thought; access to healthcare and education; and freedom from exploitation,
torture, and abuse. CRC entered into force in September 1990, and has been
ratified by 193 countries, making it the most widely ratified human rights
treaty in the world. Two countries, the United States and Somalia, have
not ratified the Convention. The President has not transmitted CRC to the
Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.

Despite widespread U.S. support for the overall objectives of the Convention,
policymakers have raised concerns as to whether it is an effective
mechanism for protecting children’s rights. The Clinton Administration
signed the Convention in February 1995, but did not submit it to the Senate
primarily because of strong opposition from several Members of Congress. The
George W. Bush Administration opposed CRC and expressed serious political
and legal concerns with the treaty, arguing that it conflicted with U.S.
laws regarding privacy and family rights. The election of President Barack
Obama in 2008 focused renewed attention on the possibility of U.S. ratification.
The Administration has stated that it supports the goals of the Convention and
that any decision to pursue ratification of CRC will be determined through
an interagency policy review. Perhaps more than other human rights
treaties, CRC addresses areas that are usually considered to be primarily
or exclusively under the jurisdiction of state or local governments, including
education, juvenile justice, and access to healthcare. Some of these
conflicting areas will likely need to be resolved by the executive branch
and the Senate before the United States ratifies the Convention.

The question of U.S. ratification of CRC has generated contentious debate.
Opponents argue that ratification would undermine U.S. sovereignty by
giving the United Nations authority to determine the best interests of
U.S. children. Some are also concerned that CRC could interfere in the
private lives of families, particularly the rights of parents to educate and
discipline their children. Moreover, some contend that CRC is an
ineffective mechanism for protecting children’s rights. They emphasize
that countries that are widely regarded as abusers of children’s rights, including
China and Sudan, are party to the Convention. Supporters of U.S. ratification,
on the other hand, hold that CRC’s intention is not to circumvent the role
of parents but to protect children against government intrusion and abuse.
Proponents emphasize what they view as CRC’s strong support for the role
of parents and the family structure. Additionally, supporters hold that U.S.
federal and state laws generally meet the requirements of CRC, and that U.S.
ratification would strengthen the United States’ credibility when
advocating children’s rights abroad.

This report provides an overview of CRC’s background and structure and examines
evolving U.S. policy toward the Convention, including past and current
Administration positions and congressional perspectives. It also
highlights issues for the 112th Congress, including the Convention’s
possible impact on federal and state laws, U.S. sovereignty, parental rights,
and U.S. family planning and abortion policy. In addition, the report
addresses the effectiveness of CRC in protecting the rights of children
internationally and its potential use as an instrument of U.S. foreign
policy.

Date of Report: June 2, 2012
Number of Pages: 21Order Number: R40484Price: $29.95

Document available via
e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.To Order:

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP
or #CRSreports